Keep AI Away From BGA

[lefalaf]

I, premium FWIW, did not get one and it seems to be some random subset of users.

I thought I hadn't received it and found it in my "Promotions" folder in Gmail. That doesn't necessarily mean everyone got it though.

Nothing in my junk/spam folder. Provider could have auto deleted it if it looked sketchy enough and/or wasn't using sufficient modern email exchange protocols/security/settings. It would probably just piss me off if it was indicating they might use AI or ads.

[SiRan90]

Asking the ai question is generally fine just to read the room. If they get a lot of negativity but still proceed with it then it's an issue.

Also think the ads are a good idea, site maintenance is expensive and it's been really struggling the last year or so, getting extra revenue is a smart move.

[AstridEs]

Lots of people have Ad blockers and the ads not being blocked by the Ad blockers are usually very invasive ads like watching videos while you wait to load your game. It won't be that little static ad on the side you end up not paying attention to. Also I'm not quite sure they are struggling that much if they plan to use the extra money for AI or skins as they suggested in their answers.

[SiRan90]

Lots of people have Ad blockers and the ads not being blocked by the Ad blockers are usually very invasive ads like watching videos while you wait to load your game. It won't be that little static ad on the side you end up not paying attention to. Also I'm not quite sure they are struggling that much if they plan to use the extra money for AI or skins as they suggested in their answers.

They are gauging what people want. Like it or not but AI is the it thing right now so it seems like they are checking if its what people would like to see here. Skins and avatars don't cost that much to prohram in. The AI question would go in line with the how much are you willing to pay question

[lefalaf]

They do have a history of ignoring users, so I'm not so sure that they will listen that we do NOT want AI anywhere near our games.

Ads for non-premium players is reasonable, if they are not to an obnoxious level, or are rare, but obnoxious themselves, like autoplay videos. Obnoxious would include things like how some mobile games have ads/videos/delays after every single turn.

[Rocketpjs]

Looks to me like the company is trying to bump up their profitability. With a web company the tried and true method is enshittification, making the user experience incrementally worse while boosting profits. Ultimately they go too far, people stop coming etc.

I sincerely hope that BGA does not opt for the enshittification route. I have been a premium member for years and really enjoy the site, but the first time I get a bad experience with a popup inviting me to pay more to get back to a good experience is the moment that I will be canceling future renewals. There are other sites. Not as good, but they are out there.

Please, please BGA, just continue being a great board gaming site with a large user base and an ever growing suite of games. Don't sign the Faustian bargain, it will only end in tears.

If you want to boost profits in a non-awful way, figure out how to promote sales of the physical games that we are all playing. In the event I want to buy a game I'd happily do it through this site. But start shoving ads and pay tiers at us and I'll probably be logging out.

[FrankJones]

Looks to me like the company is trying to bump up their profitability.

Profitability is literally the sole purpose of a company.

Maybe if more people paid for a premium membership, this would be a non-issue. [Edit - and maybe if BGA took the first step by improving the infrastructure and stability issues, more people would upgrade to the paid membership.]


I believe the premium membership is a great value: For $3.50 a month, members can get a lengthy list of benefits on a site that offers many things no other site does. End-game statistics, ability to create game tables, unlimited ability to play all games, unlimited ability to view game replays.

[I understand that some people might not have $3.50 a month to spend. I believe most people do, but just choose to allocate their funds elsewhere, which is fine. But when we make those choices, it means we are making choices and those choices might mean some inconvenience. I support BGA, but I have not upgraded my Paramount subscription, and so I have ads when I watch shows on Paramount. I do not complain publicly about the ads, because I could easily remove them by upgrading my membership.]

[harsh and non-constructive statement retracted]

[harsh and non-constructive statement retracted]

Also, since the subject if this thread is AI - one frequent feature request from players is the option to play against an "AI" in their favorite games. Why exactly is this a problem?

[Strode]

ALSO, since the subject if this thread is AI - one frequent feature request from players is the option to play against an "AI" in their favorite games. Why exactly is this a problem?

I'm guessing the opposition is purely about LLMs. You can have AI without an LLM.

Or maybe they are different people asking for AI opponents versus complaining about AI.

[lefalaf]

LLM involved things are the primary issue from my perspective and what people are referring to in 2026 when they say AI, even though it's a misnomer.

Inefficient, non-deterministic, resource intensive (even ignoring water, the power demand on the grid massively increasing electric rates for everyone (mine have about doubled), the hardware demand massively increasing prices for computer components by multiples, the effect on the level of BS and reduction in critical thinking which the world already struggles with. But there is also the water issue for those with non-closed cooling systems, and power generation is far from green at this point, so there is a big environmental cost on top of the economic, and cognitive ones.

If an AI opponent is dependent on LLMs or is otherwise using expansive resources to execute, I'd want nothing to do with it. My games don't need to contribute to destroying the environment or wrecking the economy. I'd rather be playing humans anyway.

And inefficient AI generated game code should be verboten. The servers already struggle from time to time. Plus it's likely to be less maintainable code.

[FrankJones]

LLM involved things are the primary issue from my perspective and what people are referring to in 2026 when they say AI, even though it's a misnomer.

Inefficient, non-deterministic, resource intensive (even ignoring water, the power demand on the grid massively increasing electric rates for everyone (mine have about doubled), the hardware demand massively increasing prices for computer components by multiples, the effect on the level of BS and reduction in critical thinking which the world already struggles with. But there is also the water issue for those with non-closed cooling systems, and power generation is far from green at this point, so there is a big environmental cost on top of the economic, and cognitive ones.

If an AI opponent is dependent on LLMs or is otherwise using expansive resources to execute, I'd want nothing to do with it. My games don't need to contribute to destroying the environment or wrecking the economy. I'd rather be playing humans anyway.

And inefficient AI generated game code should be verboten. The servers already struggle from time to time. Plus it's likely to be less maintainable code.

Good point about AI and resource usage - I've read a good bit about the toll AI is taking on the power grid and other systems.

[I rescind the remainder of my original post; it was rude and abrasive, and I never should have posted it. My apologies to all.]